Our friends at Graft have shared their 0 Energy hOUSE with us. Images at SpaceInvading, text after the jump...
0 Energy hOUSE
Program: 0 Energy hOUSE
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Size: 16,000 sq. ft
Concept
We have applied an integrated strategy of developing a zero-energy house that seamlessly dovetails the economic and environmental advantages of environmentally friendly living with the needs of a demanding and cosmopolitan clientele. The environmental and economic features of this way of living do not conflict with our client’s lifestyle; rather it furthers their ability to comfortably enjoy their time at home.
While providing an expansive outdoor living deck that spans the whole of the site, the primary living space is concentrated inside cooled zones. A maximum amount of economical and energy efficient floor area is created and sheltered from the elements by a dynamic tensile structure. The traditional relationship between indoor and outdoor has been shifted, allowing for comfort while free of the bonds of traditional walls.
Extended living spaces are arranged separately from each other and bisected by landscaped areas with local vegetation. The surrounding tensile fabric flows through the interior, shaping and imbuing the spaces with sublime shading and view patterns. Heavy sliding curtains enclose living spaces and create privacy.
Skin
The skin is a tensile, environmentally friendly fabric through which the outside world is seen. The skin turns and twists along the façade changing its transparency and guiding the view of the residents out to the landscape and views of the area. Viewed together, the individual strands of fabric create patterns which flow naturally over the skin.
Materials
The construction materials have been chosen when appropriate from renewable or recycled materials. Special attention has been paid to select materials either for their low embodied energy, and / or for their superior durability and performance.
13 Comments
0 energy my ass....
somehow the text and images don't quite add up. this is greenwash bullshit archispeak, and shamelessly so. it's always suspicious when techniques are called but not named, i.e. what do they mean by "the primary living space is concentrated inside cooled zones."
Cooled by what?
having studied tropical housing typologies myself quite a bit, this house seems like a sad joke (i.e. it's horizontally organized with weird openings on top instead of vertically stratified so as to allow warm air to float above, its transitions to the outside are relatively abrupt instead of getting denser / more "inside" successively etc etc) . really, I find it editorially irresponsible to allow graft to peddle their unfounded claims here - man, this thing is "located" in Malaysia, ever heard of the local traditional house type called Kampong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_houses -- which is adapted to the local climate. but what am I getting worked up for, right? I should stop being honestly concerned with these issues, fire up my modeler of choice and dub the result 0 everything house, now that would be satisfying
Second that! 16,000sf house - HOUSE - McMansion!!! This in itself is not sustainable!!!
This is quite a joke, my third year students are putting more thought into sustainable design than this.
Not to mention that the renderings are way off in scale. Look at the first and third images. The house appears to be above tree line and than way below it in the third rendering.
0 energy? 16,000 sq ft? How exactly do they get to their "home" and which number home is it--second or third? How is new construction 0 energy again? Or any construction for that matter.
Archinect you're better than this-
Aren't we?
Guys, guys, guys..."0 energy" doesn't mean the house doesn't use energy, it means the residents don't have to use any energy to enjoy their chic, enormous, beautifully sited second (third? 10th?) abode:
The environmental and economic features of this way of living do not conflict with our client’s lifestyle
Their clients are accustomed to not having to lift a finger - this house helps them to do that, and the servant's quarters aren't even visible, because the servants are all living in treehouses out on the property! ;-)
Amazing how easy it is to green-slam well-intentioned projects.
I doubt any of the commenters above would turn down a project like this- a project of this caliber is not only a great design opportunity, it's a laboratory for sustainability experimentation that small, low-budget projects can't provide the funding for.
It's a fine line that separates sustainability and self-righteousness. It's going to be self-righteousness that causes green backlash, not greenness itself. We can't really afford green backlash again.
Study the transition of early 90's political correctness into the porn star aesthetic of the new millennium and reconsider your critical tactics. Self-righteous militance backfires inevitably.
We're not playing with verbal offenses and aesthetics here, we're playing with the planet.
there's a difference between not turning something down, which of course I wouldn't, & talking so much contrived trash about the ensueing project that no professional in his right mind would believe it.
"laboratory for sustainability experimentation" - well if it only had happened, there would be no criticism here.
"It's going to be self-righteousness that causes green backlash"
I don't get what you mean by that, please elaborate.
it could be interesting if structural elements to support the fabrics were shown like those of prof. frei otto's lightweight tensile structures. otherwise, they look like a couple of temporary housings. wind pressure will deform the envelops... i guess it can't add much more abnormality to one of them. also, the project looks rather fictitious altogether. anyway, there are a number of questions coming to my mind, immediately obvious ones regarding seasonal monsoons, specifications of sustainable features... questions regarding the spatial and architectural elements to be finely designed leave me with more curiosity to investigate the project: how the relationship between the outer fabric layers and the core living zones will have shifted from the traditional one, what will happen in the buffer zones and so forth.
As a contributor to this project I should perhaps elaborate on the editorial that goes with the renders. I am the first to critise people for their 'archispeak' and unfounded claims, and regularly do so much to my enjoyment. However, please keep in mind that the article tried to describe a complex design within the space of 100 words.
Each house is made up of 5 enclosed volumes connected by decking all underneath a 160m2 large tent. These volumes house the living, kitchen, master-bedroom plus two second bedrooms. The floor areas of these spaces are kept to a reasonable minimum.( it is still a villa) but are complemented by a connecting space on the tent covered outdoor decking. So practically, you can open the patio doors of you bedroom linking it to your own bit of decking.
The climate in the tent is controlled by the shading the tent gives, but secondly because of natural ventilation. The shape of the tent is able to funnel wind through the front over and underneath the volumes before eventually escaping through the sides taking the warm air with it. The insulated volumes, intentionally kept small, are themselves individually cooled by air conditioning supplemented by a rainwater cooled system in the walls.
So what do we end up with? A 160m2 house mainly open to all sides, naturally ventilated and shaded with maximum area of ‘outdoor’ living deck with additional privacy and comfort when you need it in the bedrooms etc.
The roof of the tent, (made of tensile fabric warped by structural elements almost in a way like you would build a normal tent. But to be fair a structural engineer might have to do a couple of days work on it) also collects rainwater, used for cooling, toilet etc. The actual energy used by air conditioning, lighting electrical equipment is offset by an on-site solar power generator. There are many more aspects to the design, too many to discuss here.
The overall aim was not to make to ultimate 0 energy house, but to combine architectural design and environmentally responsible building in a competition winning entry. For the client an inspired design and for us an opportunity to learn and experiment. Building the project is of course another step.
Obviously more attention was placed in getting results from its form than having the house aesthetically merge with it's site, which at first glance might throw some people off. It might be easier to accept a 10x10 tree house labeled as "sustainable" instead of a giant white circus tent in the middle of the the forest.
I am not interested in how it looks, but I am, however, interested in how much thought was put into energy use that is inherent in producing the materials and transporting them to the site. The after-thought at the bottom of the article claims that renewable sources were used "when appropriate." In a 0 energy house, isn't it always appropriate?
thanks for responding, Bertil.
you wrote:
"please keep in mind that the article tried to describe a complex design within the space of 100 words."
reading your clarifications against the initial blurb, I think "describe" is an overstatement that should be replaced by "obfuscate design facts that render the project's title and intention invalid".
so let me sum up what this project is actually like, judging from your input and the material available. It's 5 airconditioned (and hence, by definition, sealed) cubes covered by a tent.
In the project description, Graft says "The traditional relationship between indoor and outdoor has been shifted...", which is clearly a bogus statement, as nothing the like happens: "So practically, you can open the patio doors", you sum it up yourself.
"The climate in the tent is controlled by the shading the tent gives, but secondly because of natural ventilation." (Bertil) - "A maximum amount of economical and energy efficient floor area is created and sheltered from the elements by a dynamic tensile structure." (Graft statement).
As we've just seen, the "sheltering" of the floor area from "the elements" is in reality achieved by insulating the enclosed living areas from the environment, leaving the tent to merely decrease insolation values. that the climate in it is "controlled" doesn't actually matter, as it's not tied to the performance of the house per se. I hardly call that a bioclimatic or sustainable approach but more gimmicky hogwash to mask the project's actual properties - it's literally wrapped in a layer of rhethoric.
But wait, we have more technology to come to the rescue: "rainwater cooled system in the walls" & "The actual energy used by air conditioning, lighting electrical equipment is offset by an on-site solar power generator" (Bertil)
I'd be really interested in having you describe that rainwater coolant system and how it works as standalone as well as in conjunction with the A/C system. Being in the tropics, with high and very constant temperatures as well as high relative humidity, evaporative colling techniques (as well as cooled mass strategies) tend not to work very well. In fact, there are almost NO examples of such techniques in the relevant literature. Please share with us.
As to "offsetting" the A/C energy demands with solar power, what is the amount of power possible to be generated by the type and size of solar arrays you have chosen, and how does that compare to, say, the daily energy demand of the A/C system? I don't want to nitpick, but you're making an ecological claim here - namely that you can somehow ameliorate the stigma of A/C in sustainable design (and let's not forget the project is boldly titled as such). Again, please share.
Lastly - "The overall aim was not to make to ultimate 0 energy house" - Project title :"0 Energy hOUSE by Graft" need I say more?
"Building the project is of course another step."
You know what, you are spot on, there..
properly thinking about and solving the issues at hand would require you to do it properly, instead of coming here and INSULTING everyone who has spent considerable time and energy dealing with these topics by arrogantly glossing over them and presenting unfounded claims en masse.
Describe and illustrate your design to explain these issues or take your marketing gibberish elsewhere.
Noci, gently I would offer that you need to relax. Unless this is your first time here, you have probably noticed that a lot of the projects tend to be covered via images and not the diagrams or technical specs.
This project, as much as I am not a fan or the form, nor frankly of the firm, is a viable and forward looking entry into the canon of what could be done with green building.
It isn't a mcmansion, and it isn't a bunch of aircon cells under a tarp either. Reading comprehension skills are as valuable as visual ones sometimes.
Perhaps it would behoove you too look deeper into it than just the 100 word essay you skimmed over and then generated 500 to trash it.
But, given the level of vitriol you have prduced in just this comment section. I doubt you are interested in hearing much from anyone but yourself.
Thanks for the clarification, Bertil. Any idea where naysayers and venemous doubters could get a look under the hood at this thing?
"is a viable and forward looking entry into the canon of what could be done with green building."
then wow me with your skills.. and explain to me why and how, emp11ire, because noone's done this yet.
can you deliver an argument instead of nothing but thinly veiled insults? frankly, that's the only thing you've produced in your post.
I asked the questions I needed to ask - and if I came across as if full of venom - my apologies.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.